What Now?

The ultimate test

Now,
Saudi Arabia will prove whether it is worthy to be an ally of the
United States. The U.S. defended Saudi Arabia after Iraq invaded
Kuwait. The U.S. even acceded to Saudi demands to prevent American
soldiers from exercising their freedom of religion while they were on
Saudi soil, defending the Saudis from Saddam Hussein. Will Saudi
Arabia exercise its immense influence with the Taliban, to ensure that
bin Laden and his cohorts are immediately turned over to the
Americans? If the Saudis will not support us in our time of gravest
need, they are no allies.

Those
who demand that CIA spending be increased ought to disclose what the
CIA is currently spending, and why it is inadequate. Currently, the
CIA
budget is completely secret. While there are good reasons to keep
CIA line items secret, the national-security justification for keeping
the total budget secret is very weak. Canada, Britain, and even Israel
make their intelligence budgets public.

The
Constitution mandates that "a regular Statement and Account of the
Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from
time to time." There are no exceptions. During World War II, Congress
and the president adhered to the Constitution, by making public the
budget of the Office of Strategic Services, the predecessor to the
CIA. Former CIA Directors Turner, Gates, and Deutch, as well as the
unanimous members of the
1996 Brown-Aspin Commission, agree that there is no national
security risk from disclosing the total CIA budget.

The CIA, having
already lost two billion dollars by misplacing it, is hardly
underfunded. Perhaps what the CIA needs isn't more money, but better
leadership.

As surely as sleazy lawyers gather at the scene of a car crash, the
lobbyists for big government will rush to exploit Tuesday's acts of
war in order to demand more power for intrusive and unconstitutional
government. Rather than recognizing that the crackdown on lawful
travelers following the TWA Flight 800 disaster failed to protect us,
they will demand more of the same failed non-solutions.

We should
remember that, as in the years after Pearl Harbor, not every call for
more government will really make us safer, and some will make us much
worse off. The
internment of American citizens of Japanese descent; wage and
price controls; and "emergency" rent controls in New York City
(which are still in effect) are only a few of the examples of how
American freedom and strength were harmed by the destructive expansion
of government.

The main source
of our strength is our freedom and open society. The United States
already has the most powerful military in the world. We don't need the
symbolic jaw, jaw, jaw of more laws, but the will to use our existing
war power. Paul Weyrich, head of the Free Congress Foundation, aptly
wrote: "The truth is that if we further emasculate our Constitution
the terrorists will have achieved the greatest victory imaginable.
Their triumph won't just be the thousands of people they killed, the
triumph will be if they see our democratic institutions crumble. If
President Bush can navigate a responsible course where we make an
appropriate response to those who have perpetrated these unspeakable
crimes while at the same time protecting our essential freedoms in the
process he will end up being the greatest President of the modern
age."

To prevent
future attacks, the perpetrators of Tuesday's infamies must be utterly
destroyed, even if that means infringing the territorial sovereignty
of nations which harbor these war criminals. Offending world opinion
should be of little concern. Le Monde didn't launch the
attacks, so whether Le Monde and The Guardian agree with
the American response is much less important than whether every
terrorist in the world understands that an attack on America will be a
death sentence for himself and his entire organization.

As the failure of "gun free school zones" demonstrates, bans on the
lawful possession of weapons simply embolden evildoers by providing
them with criminal safe zones. It is scandalous that
a few hijackers with knives were able to hold scores of airline
passengers at bay. As a good first step towards making commercial
airplanes dangerous for hijackers, pilots should be issued handguns.
Historian Clayton Cramer asks, "If you don't trust an airline pilot
with a handgun, why would you trust them with the controls of the
airplane?"

The training to
shoot an attacker at very close range can be accomplished in a
weekend. Ammunition and handgun models can be selected which have high
frangibility and low penetrability — meaning a low risk of the bullet
penetrating the steel walls of the airplane, and or of
over-penetrating a hijacker and hitting a passenger. In any case, the
risks of hijackers facing resistance are much lower than the risks of
hijackers able to act with impunity.

Cabin stewards
who wish to carry concealed weapons should likewise be authorized to
do so.

And passengers?
Forty years ago, sportsmen routinely stowed their shotguns in overhead
luggage compartments. There were no laws against bringing guns onto
planes. Whatever the benefits that have resulted from the last three
decades of laws against passengers carrying lawfully owned firearms
onto planes, they have been far outweighed by a single day's deaths
which are the direct result of turning planes into safe zones for
terrorists.

And readers, if
you should ever be on a hijacked plane, remember that it is better for
you to die like a hero, as you lead your fellow passengers to overcome
the hijackers, then for you to passively allow your plane to be used
to destroy thousands of other innocents.

From
the 1970s until not long ago, it was conventional wisdom that the
world's terrorists avoided acts within the United States, because they
knew that terrorism in the U.S. would lead to the destruction of their
training centers, and the destruction of themselves. Yesterday's acts
show that that deterrent was no longer credible. What kind of
responses has the United States had to terrorism? Bombing an aspirin
factory in the Sudan in order to distract public attention from the
DNA on Monica Lewinsky's dress? A
single raid on Tripoli during the Reagan administration, which
didn't even kill Qaddafi? The men who hijack planes may have the
Hell-bound courage of kamikaze pilots, but their cowardly masters do
not. When terrorist masters and their hosts learn that an attack on
the United States is a death warrant for themselves, then we will see
the end of the war on the United States of America.

Share this page:

Click
the icon to get RSS/XML updates of this website, and of Dave's articles.

Make a donation to support Dave Kopel's work in defense of constitutional
rights and public safety.

Nothing written here is to be construed as
necessarily representing the views of the Independence Institute or as an
attempt to influence any election or legislative action. Please send
comments to Independence Institute, 727 East 16th Ave., Colorado 80203. Phone 303-279-6536. (email) webmngr @ i2i.org